D&D 5E Discussion

[JamesDixon]

The most humiliating way to kill a level 1 wizard? Sick a bunch of cats on him.

Well a duo of house cats would kill any first level class in a single round. A single house cat has three attacks per round that are two claws and a bite with a rear claw rake of 1-2 points of damage. If the cat hits with the front two paws the special attack is automatically applied and does not count as a separate attack. The claws do 1-2 points of damage while the bite does 1 point. The total amount of damage a cat can do is 4-7 points of damage. Two cats can kill a rogue in one round or a fighter and a cleric in two. Three cats could kill a fighter and a cleric in a single round.

This is why you roll barbarians

In AD&D 2E Barbarians are a Fighter kit not a class.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

The most humiliating way to kill a level 1 wizard? Sick a bunch of cats on him.

Well a duo of house cats would kill any first level class in a single round. A single house cat has three attacks per round that are two claws and a bite with a rear claw rake of 1-2 points of damage. If the cat hits with the front two paws the special attack is automatically applied and does not count as a separate attack. The claws do 1-2 points of damage while the bite does 1 point. The total amount of damage a cat can do is 4-7 points of damage. Two cats can kill a rogue in one round or a fighter and a cleric in two. Three cats could kill a fighter and a cleric in a single round.

This is why you roll barbarians

In AD&D 2E Barbarians are a Fighter kit not a class.

Still smart enough to throw water on the cats to chase them off.

 

[JamesDixon]

Still smart enough to throw water on the cats to chase them off.

Cats don't suffer any penalties to water. Also, to get the Barbarian kit you need a 15 Strength. It says nothing of Intelligence there.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Cats don't suffer any penalties to water.

No they just avoid it like the plague.

 

[BruceVC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=250&v=rnPJQ6398Wk&feature=emb_title

This may be old but its an interesting video on the future of D&D: One, I think the future looks exciting and promising

 

[JamesDixon]

Cats don't suffer any penalties to water.

No they just avoid it like the plague.

I'm not seeing that in their write up. In fact, it makes no mention of water at all for domestic and wild cats. There are three types of house cat. They are Domestic, Wild, and Elven. Elven cats can speak. They also are very stealthy giving a -5 penalty to an opponents' surprise roll. The cat itself is surprised on a roll of a 1 only. They have 99.9% to move silently and 90% chance to hide in wilderness areas. They also are excellent climbers, leap 20 feet, and enjoy swimming and playing in water. Said elven cats also get limited magic abilities as well.

A solitary Elven cat can take out all level 1 classes as it has 2 claws, 1 bite, and 2 rake attacks with rear claws. The front claws do 1-2, bite is 1-3, and the rake attack is 1-2. Thus, if said Elven cat hits with all of its attacks it can do a max of 5-11 points of damage.

 

[Reinhardt]

Cats don't suffer any penalties to water.

No they just avoid it like the plague.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I'm not seeing that in their write up.

Eh? Don't see why you need a Monster Manual to know that cats hate water.

Elven cats

 

[JamesDixon]

I'm not seeing that in their write up.

Eh? Don't see why you need a Monster Manual to know that cats hate water.

Elven cats

Cats in AD&D aren't your typical cats. I'm merely relaying the information of what is in the game. If you don't like it that's your problem.

 

[Alex]

If was up to me, lv 13 Barbarians/Fighters could decapitate most enemies and after it, grab his head and use the head to intimidate enemies and make then flee if they are weak

This is the sort of thing I do not want to formalize into a rule. It's likely more work for the DM, but I'd rather leave actions open than restrict them to learned feats.

DCC RPG has rules for special combat actions like this that are open to creative usage. Overall, I would say it is probably the best, if not the only interesting game of the last decade and so.

 

[JamesDixon]

If was up to me, lv 13 Barbarians/Fighters could decapitate most enemies and after it, grab his head and use the head to intimidate enemies and make then flee if they are weak

This is the sort of thing I do not want to formalize into a rule. It's likely more work for the DM, but I'd rather leave actions open than restrict them to learned feats.

DCC RPG has rules for special combat actions like this that are open to creative usage. Overall, I would say it is probably the best, if not the only interesting game of the last decade and so.

This is the extent of AD&D 2E's rules for creative usage from page 72 of the DMG Revised Premium Edition.

Players should be allowed to try whatever they want -- especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.

To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If the characters wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.

The tick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls on the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and --perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.

Old school role-playing is a You Can Try system and isn't reliant upon mechanics to make things happen. The GM/DM makes a judgment call on what attributes/skills a character uses to make the action happen. I despise the current retardation of If You Don't Have X You Can't Do Y. If the game writers didn't think of something you're fucked and your entire creativity as a player is removed. No writer can think of everything that can happen in a game and codify it into rules. Thus, you should be using your own fucking brains for creatively overcoming what your character faces.

 

[Alex]

If was up to me, lv 13 Barbarians/Fighters could decapitate most enemies and after it, grab his head and use the head to intimidate enemies and make then flee if they are weak

This is the sort of thing I do not want to formalize into a rule. It's likely more work for the DM, but I'd rather leave actions open than restrict them to learned feats.

DCC RPG has rules for special combat actions like this that are open to creative usage. Overall, I would say it is probably the best, if not the only interesting game of the last decade and so.

This is the extent of AD&D 2E's rules for creative usage from page 72 of the DMG Revised Premium Edition.

Players should be allowed to try whatever they want -- especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.

To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If the characters wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.

The tick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls on the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and --perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.

Old school role-playing is a You Can Try system and isn't reliant upon mechanics to make things happen. The GM/DM makes a judgment call on what attributes/skills a character uses to make the action happen. I despise the current retardation of If You Don't Have X You Can't Do Y. If the game writers didn't think of something you're fucked and your entire creativity as a player is removed. No writer can think of everything that can happen in a game and codify it into rules. Thus, you should be using your own fucking brains for creatively overcoming what your character faces.

Well, by this measure you might as well have omitted all those pages with spells from any (A)D&D edition and simply have written that the DM should consider magic a drama, a staged play.

My point, of course, is not that the only actions that can be tried should be those with explicit rules; as if RPG was just a different kind of board game. But the rules for resolving actions are still an important aspect of the game. These rules, as I understand them, have two important roles in the game. One is to help the DM/GM to adjudicate things in a fair and sane way. When we must adjudicate an action (any action, no matter how well covered by the rules or not), there are important aspects to consider. The consequences of success and failure, the ways it could succeed or fail and, of course, the chances of any of these. Good rules will help the DM do this, and do this consistently. which is why they can be very useful. Other than that, they are also important to communicate to the players these things. In a freeform game, without rules but only GM fiat, unless the GM is both very careful and disciplined, the success or failure of an action and its consequences will not seem to be based on the action itself, but on whim. And even if the GM is careful as to instil a certain sense of reality to the game, it will take a while playing with him for the players to see this, to get a sense of what is a good idea to attempt or not. Rules lay out an initial groundwork so that this communication is faster.

 

[JamesDixon]

Well, by this measure you might as well have omitted all those pages with spells from any (A)D&D edition and simply have written that the DM should consider magic a drama, a staged play.

Alex you are smarter than this to make such a retarded argument.

My point, of course, is not that the only actions that can be tried should be those with explicit rules; as if RPG was just a different kind of board game. But the rules for resolving actions are still an important aspect of the game. These rules, as I understand them, have two important roles in the game. One is to help the DM/GM to adjudicate things in a fair and sane way. When we must adjudicate an action (any action, no matter how well covered by the rules or not), there are important aspects to consider. The consequences of success and failure, the ways it could succeed or fail and, of course, the chances of any of these. Good rules will help the DM do this, and do this consistently. which is why they can be very useful. Other than that, they are also important to communicate to the players these things. In a freeform game, without rules but only GM fiat, unless the GM is both very careful and disciplined, the success or failure of an action and its consequences will not seem to be based on the action itself, but on whim. And even if the GM is careful as to instil a certain sense of reality to the game, it will take a while playing with him for the players to see this, to get a sense of what is a good idea to attempt or not. Rules lay out an initial groundwork so that this communication is faster.

Your point is that players and their DM are retarded and the game designers know better. This is why you can't trust any of them to think on their own or to adjudicate the rules properly. Hence why you have this retarded hand holding bullshit retarded system you have now.

So all players and their DMs are retards and Wizards of the Woke are the intellectual powerhouses that know better then the players themselves. Got anything more retarded that you want to argue with or do you like sucking Wizards of the Woke's SJW cock and swallowing their load?

 

[Alex]

(...snip)

My point, of course, is not that the only actions that can be tried should be those with explicit rules; as if RPG was just a different kind of board game. But the rules for resolving actions are still an important aspect of the game. These rules, as I understand them, have two important roles in the game. One is to help the DM/GM to adjudicate things in a fair and sane way. When we must adjudicate an action (any action, no matter how well covered by the rules or not), there are important aspects to consider. The consequences of success and failure, the ways it could succeed or fail and, of course, the chances of any of these. Good rules will help the DM do this, and do this consistently. which is why they can be very useful. Other than that, they are also important to communicate to the players these things. In a freeform game, without rules but only GM fiat, unless the GM is both very careful and disciplined, the success or failure of an action and its consequences will not seem to be based on the action itself, but on whim. And even if the GM is careful as to instil a certain sense of reality to the game, it will take a while playing with him for the players to see this, to get a sense of what is a good idea to attempt or not. Rules lay out an initial groundwork so that this communication is faster.

Your point is that players and their DM are retarded and the game designers know better. This is why you can't trust any of them to think on their own or to adjudicate the rules properly. Hence why you have this retarded hand holding bullshit retarded system you have now.

So all players and their DMs are retards and Wizards of the Woke are the intellectual powerhouses that know better then the players themselves. Got anything more retarded that you want to argue with or do you like sucking Wizards of the Woke's SJW cock and swallowing their load?

My point is that there is a reason why RPGs have rules for various different actions rather than just being free-form affairs with the DM fiat being the only mechanic for conflict resolution. For instance, let's move away from D&D for a minute. One of my favourite games is GURPS (especially 3e). Now, you don't need the bulky rules in GURPS vehicles to have vehicles and even vehicular combat in your games. But, in the measure that GURPS Vehicles is a good supplement, it has good rules to help you determine how such combat should flow, which is something many GMs (me included) would be at a loss at how to do fairly. I don't have anything against people who want their games to be more free-form, if that is how you want to play, go ahead! But my point is that these things have a reason to exist, and we should be clear on what they are good for and what they aren't.

 

[JamesDixon]

My point is that there is a reason why RPGs have rules for various different actions rather than just being free-form affairs with the DM fiat being the only mechanic for conflict resolution. For instance, let's move away from D&D for a minute. One of my favourite games is GURPS (especially 3e). Now, you don't need the bulky rules in GURPS vehicles to have vehicles and even vehicular combat in your games. But, in the measure that GURPS Vehicles is a good supplement, it has good rules to help you determine how such combat should flow, which is something many GMs (me included) would be at a loss at how to do fairly. I don't have anything against people who want their games to be more free-form, if that is how you want to play, go ahead! But my point is that these things have a reason to exist, and we should be clear on what they are good for and what they aren't.

Except for your example of GURPS 3E doesn't have feats or anything like Wizards of the Woke's DANDINO. It's a You Can Try System/GM Determines The Best Way To Resolve Stuff. This is why I'm finding your entire defense of Wizard of the Woke's DANDINO to be hilarious. Yes, I am literally laughing at you.

Come on tell me again that a game designer knows all the ways to play every single character that will ever be made, literally billions, as an excuse for If You Don't Have X You Can't Do Y. I need the fucking laugh at your retardation.

 

[Cryomancer]

Looks like Woketards is announcing a new dandino "edition", could be 5.5 or 6e

• Only PCs going to crit(0:33)
• Most of the community is disappointed and the corporate media cheering
• The youtuber claims that most people involved in the development of 6e seems to hate D&D
• They are more worried about woke bs than making a good product
• Talk about how wokism ruined dark elves(4:40)
• All the races acting like humans defies the reason to have fantasy races(7m)

=========================

r If You Don't Have X You Can't Do Y.

I agree with you. IMO the example of an barb wanting to decapitate an enemy.

• IF he says "I will swing my axe and try to decapitate teh enemy" once, is up to the DM
• IF happens in many encounters, the DM should homebrew a "check"
• IF happens in many encounters, with many players attempting to do it in many different groups across the world, it should become formalized as an rule

Just my opinion.

 

[JamesDixon]

I agree with you. IMO the example of an barb wanting to decapitate an enemy.

• IF he says "I will swing my axe and try to decapitate teh enemy" once, is up to the DM
• IF happens in many encounters, the DM should homebrew a "check"
• IF happens in many encounters, with many players attempting to do it in many different groups across the world, it should become formalized as an rule

Except that you're describing an action that is at the end of combat that results in the death of the opponent. There's already an established rule on death. Why do you need a rule permitting you to do a specific action that you can already do when you describe your actions?

 

[ERYFKRAD]

My point is that there is a reason why RPGs have rules for various different actions rather than just being free-form affairs with the DM fiat being the only mechanic for conflict resolution. For instance, let's move away from D&D for a minute. One of my favourite games is GURPS (especially 3e). Now, you don't need the bulky rules in GURPS vehicles to have vehicles and even vehicular combat in your games. But, in the measure that GURPS Vehicles is a good supplement, it has good rules to help you determine how such combat should flow, which is something many GMs (me included) would be at a loss at how to do fairly.

I am not sure it is fair to consider rulings to be entirely free form, in the the sense that rulings are based on the inherent mechanics of the game system. I mean, it is somewhat farfetched to assume a gm would ask you to solve a rubik's cube to determine if you succeed a specific task in d&d.

Except that you're describing an action that is at the end of combat that results in the death of the opponent. There's already an established rule on death. Why do you need a rule permitting you to do a specific action that you can already do when you describe your actions?

I think our boy here is going for the headshot and instakill right off the bat, as against doing it as a finisher, so to speak.

 

[Alex]

My point is that there is a reason why RPGs have rules for various different actions rather than just being free-form affairs with the DM fiat being the only mechanic for conflict resolution. For instance, let's move away from D&D for a minute. One of my favourite games is GURPS (especially 3e). Now, you don't need the bulky rules in GURPS vehicles to have vehicles and even vehicular combat in your games. But, in the measure that GURPS Vehicles is a good supplement, it has good rules to help you determine how such combat should flow, which is something many GMs (me included) would be at a loss at how to do fairly. I don't have anything against people who want their games to be more free-form, if that is how you want to play, go ahead! But my point is that these things have a reason to exist, and we should be clear on what they are good for and what they aren't.

Except for your example of GURPS 3E doesn't have feats or anything like Wizards of the Woke's DANDINO. It's a You Can Try System/GM Determines The Best Way To Resolve Stuff. This is why I'm finding your entire defense of Wizard of the Woke's DANDINO to be hilarious. Yes, I am literally laughing at you.

Come on tell me again that a game designer knows all the ways to play every single character that will ever be made, literally billions, as an excuse for If You Don't Have X You Can't Do Y. I need the fucking laugh at your retardation.

You are the one bringing up feats, dude. I was talking about DCC RPG, which doesn't even have them.

Of course the DM should be involved in the act of resolving in game actions; it shouldn't be a mechanical system that could be easily put in the computer. So should the player (assuming it is a player and not an NPC action) for that matter. I don't like feats for the same reason you seem to not like them; they not only end up limiting what you can do with or without them, they also put too much of an emphasis on "builds". I think a game geared like that can be fun, but my favourite kind of game is more focused in creative problem solving rather than maximising a number like damage or AC or what have you.

Anyway, I will describe the system in DCC, in the hopes of clearing any misunderstandings. The game has something called "mighty deeds of arms", which is a feature of the warrior (and dwarven) class in that game, which is actually a bit limiting but not on the level of feats. Basically, the warrior describes some action he wants to take with his attack and then makes a normal attack roll. If the deed die (which is the attack bonus of theses classes, it starts as a d3 on level one ad goes to a d10+4 on level 10) is higher than 3 and the attack lands, the character obtains some amount of success, the higher the deed die, the greater the success. There are a few sample effects of what could be accomplished with these in the book, such as disarming, blinding, rallying, etc. The system is very open ended, and you could consider the whole decapitation example as such:

If you land the deed hit and manage to kill the opponent you are facing, you will decapitate him and as an effect you will get:

Deed Die​	Effect​
3​	The closest enemy gets a will save against the attack roll. Failure means it flees in panic as if under a fear spell.
4​	Same as above, but affecting enemies in a 10 feet radius.
5​	Either as above or, if only a single enemy remains, its save is at a penalty of -2.
6​	The deed affects all enemies that can see the warrior with some clarity.
7​	As above, but the deed has a -2 penalty to the will save and those who fail fear the warrior above all else, even throwing themselves in a lake of lava if cornered.

The deed wouldn't work against enemies that are immune to fear spells or similar effects, or creatures that somehow love death, like cultists of a god of murder. Furthermore, it won't affect creatures of a higher level or more hit dice than the one you originally slew. Of course, if you were the DM you might want to resolve this differently.

 

[JamesDixon]

I think our boy here is going for the headshot and instakill right off the bat, as against doing it as a finisher, so to speak.

The only time that could happen is if the opponent was surprised and it was a very good roll on the player's part.

Anyway, I will describe the system in DCC, in the hopes of clearing any misunderstandings. The game has something called "mighty deeds of arms", which is a feature of the warrior (and dwarven) class in that game, which is actually a bit limiting but not on the level of feats. Basically, the warrior describes some action he wants to take with his attack and then makes a normal attack roll. If the deed die (which is the attack bonus of theses classes, it starts as a d3 on level one ad goes to a d10+4 on level 10) is higher than 3 and the attack lands, the character obtains some amount of success, the higher the deed die, the greater the success. There are a few sample effects of what could be accomplished with these in the book, such as disarming, blinding, rallying, etc. The system is very open ended, and you could consider the whole decapitation example as such:

So you just described a feat that replaced what can already be done under a You Can Try system which real D&D is. Why do you need rules for something that you describe? Are your players and you so fucking retarded that you can't think of actions on your own?

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Are your players and you so fucking retarded that you can't think of actions on your own?

If I understand Alex , his contention would be that even if rulings were taken up and worked with, it requires an experienced GM to make it work.
Good/Experienced GMs though, where do you find them.

 

[Alex]

I think our boy here is going for the headshot and instakill right off the bat, as against doing it as a finisher, so to speak.

The only time that could happen is if the opponent was surprised and it was a very good roll on the player's part.

Anyway, I will describe the system in DCC, in the hopes of clearing any misunderstandings. The game has something called "mighty deeds of arms", which is a feature of the warrior (and dwarven) class in that game, which is actually a bit limiting but not on the level of feats. Basically, the warrior describes some action he wants to take with his attack and then makes a normal attack roll. If the deed die (which is the attack bonus of theses classes, it starts as a d3 on level one ad goes to a d10+4 on level 10) is higher than 3 and the attack lands, the character obtains some amount of success, the higher the deed die, the greater the success. There are a few sample effects of what could be accomplished with these in the book, such as disarming, blinding, rallying, etc. The system is very open ended, and you could consider the whole decapitation example as such:

So you just described a feat that replaced what can already be done under a You Can Try system which real D&D is. Why do you need rules for something that you describe? Are your players and you so fucking retarded that you can't think of actions on your own?

Again, it is not a feat, it is the rules for determining success or failure of the action, as well as determining what effect it has. The reason why it is useful is because players now can have expectations of what similar actions might accomplish and how. It also helps the DM because it helps him remain consistent in his rulings. Same reason why you would use a vehicle design system like in GURPS rather than just have the GM assign a bunch of stats based on how he thinks such a vehicle should behave.

I don't much like how the system in DCC ultimately deals with this because there is a greater focus on character level than the action itself; but it is not awful either and works for a certain kind of game.

 

[Alex]

Are your players and you so fucking retarded that you can't think of actions on your own?

If I understand Alex , his contention would be that even if rulings were taken up and worked with, it requires an experienced GM to make it work.
Good/Experienced GMs though, where do you find them.

My point would be more like "there are ways where rules can help the DM make rulings and make those consistent, and help the players see and understand that consistency".

 

[JamesDixon]

If I understand @Alex , his contention would be that even if rulings were taken up and worked with, it requires an experienced GM to make it work.
Good/Experienced GMs though, where do you find them.

Those are created via experience in rendering judgments in the rules. If you can't trust the GM to make the right rulings then you never get experienced GMs.

The reason why it is useful is because players now can have expectations of what similar actions might accomplish and how.

In short, players are retarded and GMs can't be trusted. The game designer must think of every situation that may arise, so there is a 15,000 page rulebook. I can think of one game off the top of my head where the rulebook was labyrinthian that you needed an advanced degree to even participate. It was known as Star Fleet Squabbles aka Star Fleet Battles.

My point would be more like "there are ways where rules can help the DM make rulings and make those consistent, and help the players see and understand that consistency".

In other words, players are retarded and GMs and their judgments can't be trusted. If you don't trust the GM then why the fuck are you playing a game that requires them?

 

[Alex]

If I understand @Alex , his contention would be that even if rulings were taken up and worked with, it requires an experienced GM to make it work.
Good/Experienced GMs though, where do you find them.

Those are created via experience in rendering judgments in the rules. If you can't trust the GM to make the right rulings then you never get experienced GMs.

The reason why it is useful is because players now can have expectations of what similar actions might accomplish and how.

In short, players are retarded and GMs can't be trusted. The game designer must think of every situation that may arise, so there is a 15,000 page rulebook. I can think of one game off the top of my head where the rulebook was labyrinthian that you needed an advanced degree to even participate. It was known as Star Fleet Squabbles aka Star Fleet Battles.

My point would be more like "there are ways where rules can help the DM make rulings and make those consistent, and help the players see and understand that consistency".

In other words, players are retarded and GMs and their judgments can't be trusted. If you don't trust the GM then why the fuck are you playing a game that requires them?

I don't know why you find what I am saying so controversial, James. Rules and GM decision work together in any RPG game outside pure free-form. Even the Amber game that did away with dice or any other random method still uses rules for decisions. Are you arguing that they are ultimately uneeded? If so, why not just play a free-form game? If not, then what role do you propose they should play?